Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

On 6/27/2021 at 8:15 PM, 159Hunter said:

Person with hidden stats complaining about a MMM result...

 

 A bit better WR than you, if you want to know. It's not MMM, it's Potato Alert, and I hide my stats to not be focused. I complain about the excessive difference in WR between teams, and I'm not saying I always play well. What I say is that such big difference means a lose in 95% of the cases, and that's not fair. The same when that difference benefits me.

[tsounts]

13 hours ago, Dusan_The_Mighty said:

You are not 1st place just cus you deal most dmg. You gotta cap, defend, AND deal dmg(at least in Ranked).

Trust me, I know.... 

[159Hunter]

2 hours ago, RiggedSantaCrateGuy said:

 

 A bit better WR than you, if you want to know. 

Nope, your solo WR is 3% below mine. 

[Dusan_The_Mighty]

He bought Ise thou, he is ready for the SHT!

 

[Dusan_The_Mighty]

I'll stop.. sorry. Enough is enough.

[Chips_uk]

17 minutes ago, Dusan_The_Mighty said:

I'll stop.. sorry. Enough is enough.

Who said matchmaking will give ability balance? It just makes games... you should have just stopped expecting teams to be "well" balanced; even if they were, simple mistakes can still throw the game out the window.

 

Only decent advice - if you aren't enjoying it, stop playing. I realise you've uninstalled which *is* stopping playing, but I mean in a softer way; as in try again mid week etc.

 

There's really no point getting wound up about a game. I mean why care about a game? WG don't, neither should you! :) 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

56 minutes ago, Chips_uk said:

Who said matchmaking will give ability balance? It just makes games... you should have just stopped expecting teams to be "well" balanced; even if they were, simple mistakes can still throw the game out the window.

 

Only decent advice - if you aren't enjoying it, stop playing. I realise you've uninstalled which *is* stopping playing, but I mean in a softer way; as in try again mid week etc.

 

There's really no point getting wound up about a game. I mean why care about a game? WG don't, neither should you! :) 

 

I care because "a game" is a place where I want to enjoy when I try to disconnect from daily worries, not to be permenently frustrated because WG decided by their "RNG" that I was aiming well......but I was not going to hit a single shell, torp, etc. in an enemy ship at less than 10 kms.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

3 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Nope, your solo WR is 3% below mine. 

Congrats for playing "random". I nearly don't from many time ago; too many "special" players over there lately. And when WG introduces subs in ranked, then I will stop playing this game, tired of the many stupidities I've seen last year from the owners. So simple.

[Dusan_The_Mighty]

4 minutes ago, RiggedSantaCrateGuy said:

 

I care because "a game" is a place where I want to enjoy when I try to disconnect from daily worries, not to be permenently frustrated because WG decided by their "RNG" that I was aiming well......but I was not going to hit a single shell, torp, etc. in an enemy ship at less than 10 kms.

[159Hunter]

35 minutes ago, RiggedSantaCrateGuy said:

Congrats for playing "random". I nearly don't from many time ago; too many "special" players over there lately. And when WG introduces subs in ranked, then I will stop playing this game, tired of the many stupidities I've seen last year from the owners. So simple.

As if the special people are limited to randoms...

This game has gone down the drain because WG is just milking it by:

a) dumbing down the game

b) throwing balance overboard

c) overloading playerbase with events / new lines ...

d) making high tiers more and more important

....

 

All this has lead to a delince in the skilled playerbase. 

[Chips_uk]

18 hours ago, RiggedSantaCrateGuy said:

 

I care because "a game" is a place where I want to enjoy when I try to disconnect from daily worries, not to be permenently frustrated because WG decided by their "RNG" that I was aiming well......but I was not going to hit a single shell, torp, etc. in an enemy ship at less than 10 kms.

 

The RNG is necessary otherwise every broadside would be dev struck (especially for cruisers and dd's); we're also all in the same boat (arf arf) as RNG is for all. Luck is the random citadel and luck is the 5 overpens on waterline shot at a broadside battleship at 8km. 

 

If the RNG is what ails you, then you are definitely playing the wrong game because it's a lifelong feature of the game, its no secret nor hidden - so why *that* is your issue seems very odd. It isn't going to change is it. Ability mismatch and random face palms mid game are way more understandable as irritants, but... they seem to have little motivation to change it tbh - whether because it'll never be perfect and always hated (i.e. find another aspect to complain about), or match times would take so long people would stop playing the game, who knows.

 

[totally_potato]

can't MM be +1 or -1 spread? How would that affect queues?

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, Chips_uk said:

 

The RNG is necessary otherwise every broadside would be dev struck (especially for cruisers and dd's); we're also all in the same boat (arf arf) as RNG is for all. Luck is the random citadel and luck is the 5 overpens on waterline shot at a broadside battleship at 8km. 

 

If the RNG is what ails you, then you are definitely playing the wrong game because it's a lifelong feature of the game, its no secret nor hidden - so why *that* is your issue seems very odd. It isn't going to change is it. Ability mismatch and random face palms mid game are way more understandable as irritants, but... they seem to have little motivation to change it tbh - whether because it'll never be perfect and always hated (i.e. find another aspect to complain about), or match times would take so long people would stop playing the game, who knows.

 

Actually, RNG could be solved by map design promoting brawling... that way, players would have the ability to limit enemy's engagement options and damage through skill (using cover, angling, etc.), without feeling cheated out of that perfect shot. It would also make games lot more fun. Ever seen two Bismarcks, or hell, two Konigs, blasting away at each other with secondaries? Fun times. But WG doesn't want fun games where skill matters in obvious ways, they want games where higher tier ship with 2-5 km more range has massive advantage, where impact of skill is not so obvious... and thus where people will be buying premiums in the hope of competing at higher tiers instead of slowly progressing through the game and only buying premium ships as collector items.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

2 hours ago, Chips_uk said:

 

The RNG is necessary otherwise every broadside would be dev struck (especially for cruisers and dd's); we're also all in the same boat (arf arf) as RNG is for all. Luck is the random citadel and luck is the 5 overpens on waterline shot at a broadside battleship at 8km. 

 

If the RNG is what ails you, then you are definitely playing the wrong game because it's a lifelong feature of the game, its no secret nor hidden - so why *that* is your issue seems very odd. It isn't going to change is it. Ability mismatch and random face palms mid game are way more understandable as irritants, but... they seem to have little motivation to change it tbh - whether because it'll never be perfect and always hated (i.e. find another aspect to complain about), or match times would take so long people would stop playing the game, who knows.

 

 

The problem is the "amount" of RNG we have to deal with. A bit of RNG is ok....but not the huge RNG WG uses to protect the big number of potatos from the not many good players still playing. Tha fact is that good players don't pay the bills, and that WG uses RNG for that purpose.

[Camperdown]

2 hours ago, Chips_uk said:

 

The RNG is necessary otherwise every broadside would be dev struck (especially for cruisers and dd's); we're also all in the same boat (arf arf) as RNG is for all. Luck is the random citadel and luck is the 5 overpens on waterline shot at a broadside battleship at 8km. 

 

If the RNG is what ails you, then you are definitely playing the wrong game because it's a lifelong feature of the game, its no secret nor hidden - so why *that* is your issue seems very odd. It isn't going to change is it. Ability mismatch and random face palms mid game are way more understandable as irritants, but... they seem to have little motivation to change it tbh - whether because it'll never be perfect and always hated (i.e. find another aspect to complain about), or match times would take so long people would stop playing the game, who knows.

 

Although I understand the limits of 'historical' or irl arguments in the context of a WG game, I would also like to point out that typical hit rates in WWII were between 1 and 5%. So the 30-40% one can achieve with current RNG are already generous 

[KHETTIFER]

5 hours ago, RiggedSantaCrateGuy said:

 

The problem is the "amount" of RNG we have to deal with. A bit of RNG is ok....but not the huge RNG WG uses to protect the big number of potatos from the not many good players still playing. Tha fact is that good players don't pay the bills, and that WG uses RNG for that purpose.

This game is riddled with protected players, it's actually depressing how stupid it's gotten, the more clueless a player is, the more WG wants to upsell to them. Unfortunately this makes WoWs an irrelevant dead end of a game.

[CaTTiViKIT]

Alle 4/7/2021 alle 17:01, Dusan_The_Mighty ha scritto:

I'll stop.. sorry. Enough is enough.

You did very well and I think I will follow ', RNG MM BAL none of this works and they will NEVER put their hand to it, so much so it does not bring money to modify it decently once and for all, so we might as well find more to have fun now here (whether you win or lose ) has not existed for some time.

[GarrusBrutus]

The 17900HP-shima-on-J-line memes are real......

[Deckeru_Maiku]

I think to recall that WG had wanted to implement a change to the MM, so that the lower tier ships wouldn't end up alone in a battle with a multitude of higher tier (+2) ships.

 

And I also recall that there was supposed some kinda "fixed" percentage chances to be low-mid-high tier after a number of battles...

 

Both seems to be just... vaporware? 10 battles today. Once high tier ship. Two times mid tier ship. All the rest played as low tier... kinda tedious...

 

Add to that getting teams consisting of high tier ships controlled by sub 45% potatoes and it gets even frustrating, as carrying in a T5 cruiser against 8 T7 ships is not really easy...

I still think this kinda planned by WG to get players to go to T10, which is the Tier from which probably WGs most income comes...

[ColonelPete]

22 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Both seems to be just... vaporware? 10 battles today. Once high tier ship. Two times mid tier ship. All the rest played as low tier... kinda tedious...

Both work. Look at your past 20 battles on the same Tier.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

50 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Both work. Look at your past 20 battles on the same Tier.

Nope... tested that a couple months before already, with writing down tier of ship played and if it's L-M-H tier in the battle... and the %s weren't nowhere close to what WG had proposed them to be.

It might (!) work if one plays the same ship for 20 battles in a row... which is not what was proposed by WG.

Of course if you have some hard proof yourself, feel free to show it here. A blank "it works" isn't proof though.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Nope... tested that a couple months before already, with writing down tier of ship played and if it's L-M-H tier in the battle... and the %s weren't nowhere close to what WG had proposed them to be.

It might (!) work if one plays the same ship for 20 battles in a row... which is not what was proposed by WG.

Of course if you have some hard proof yourself, feel free to show it here. A blank "it works" isn't proof though.

It is not L-M-H. Only -2 is limited.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

Just now, ColonelPete said:

It is not L-M-H. Only -2 is limited.

From my experience it isn't. At least not as proposed. But I guess You will soon^tm produce hard fact that support your claim?!?

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

From my experience it isn't. At least not as proposed. But I guess You will soon^tm produce hard fact that support your claim?!?

Is it so hard too look it up? It was even posted in this thread.

 

Spoiler

Matchmaker

We’re introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, as well as the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-087-french-destroyers-part-2/#game-mechanics

 

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Is it so hard too look it up? It was even posted in this thread.

 

  Hide contents

Matchmaker

We’re introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, as well as the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-087-french-destroyers-part-2/#game-mechanics

 

 

That's not proof. That's a statement of intent. My testing showed me, that it doesn't work as described in that piece of text.

So, again: have you hard proof that it works? Have you tested it yourself? Or do you believe the sky is pink because WG wrote so somewhere here in the forum?